9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registration no, service provided, service recipient, value of taxable service, refund cannot be rejected (merely because the documents are debit notes). Whether refund of Terminal Handling charges paid by the appellants in terms of N/N. 41/2007-ST prior to 07.07.2009 can be allowed? - While the Commissioner acknowledges in his order that service of Terminal Handling are provided for export of goods at the port, he has rejected the refund stating that the same was not specifically included in the list of eligible services - Held that: - this particular issue has been decided by this Tribunal in their favour in their own case in Nahar Fibres Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2013 (12) TMI 330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where By reference to the exemption p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the refund of ₹ 1,59,766/-. The matter was taken up for revision by the Commissioner. In the revision proceedings, the Commissioner has rejected the refund of ₹ 2,83,124/- pertaining to debit note/expense voucher and Terminal Handling charges holding them to be wrongly sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 09.04.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants invites attention to the Notification No. 47/2007 and states that the Notification provide as follows:- (f) the refund claim shall be accompanied by documents evidencing, (i) export of the said goods; (ii) payment of service tax on the specified services for w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rule 4A and the Board Circular only speak of the invoice/challan/bills. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in this regard. He also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore- 2010 (20) S.T.R. 609 (Tri. Del.). On the second issue, the Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings of the Commissioner in his revision order. 5. Heard both the parties and examined the record. 6. There are two issues which are involved in this appeal: Issue (i) Whether the refund can be sanctioned on the basis of debit note submitted by the appellants I find that the Notification No. 41/2007 at Serial No. 2 mentions taxable service as Section 65(105)(zn) with description servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable for two reasons. Firstly, it pertains to Cenvat Credit of Service Tax and not in the context of refund under Notification No. 41/2007 and secondly, this decision is of a Single Member whereas the decision of M/s Shivam Exports Others (supra) , which is directly in the context of Notification No.41/2007-ST, has been delivered by a Division Bench. Issue (ii) Whether refund of Terminal Handling charges paid by the appellants in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST prior to 07.07.2009 can be allowed The Commissioner has rejected this refund on the ground that there is no reference to Terminal Handling Charges as specified services under Serial No. 2 of the schedule of the said Notification. The period involved in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a port, in any manner. Port service is defined in Section 65(82) as meaning any service rendered within a port or other port in any manner. 6. On a true and fair construction of the relevant entry at Sl. No. 2 of the table under Exemption Notification No.41/2007-S.T., the inference is compelling that any service provided in relation to port services in a port, in any manner to an exporter and where such service is used for export is exempted from whole of the Service Tax leviable under Section 66 and Section 66A of the Act. 7. Subsequently, by Notification No.17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 the Government issued further exemptions, exempting taxable services enumerated in the table, received by an exporter of goods and used for expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
